Epistemology - How do you know what you know? Can your worldview account for that?

Who posted a essay in the comments

It's the basis for science and should be the starting presupposition. - or you'll end up with faulty convulsions - which is much of the reason modern science - specifically the social sciences - are in a ditch.

All science does is produce raw data - it does not provide the interpretational framework or Apriori which proceeds from it. This comes from true presuppositions which God alone accounts for. .

I understand science only deals with the natural - which is precisely why it's limited in it's scope of knowledge and understanding - and really limited - if not practiced in a dysfunctional manner - if it's built on faulty presuppositions alluded to above.

If you start practicing science with the faulty presupposition which assumes naturalism and/or pure rationalism alone - the rest of your science will flow from that faulty starting point.

This is not to say a person who rejects God can not practice science without God or occasionally come upon right conclusions - I can deny the existence of Henry Ford and still drive a Ford - but that he or she can not account for or make sense of the data he or she will come across - and in the social sciences - formulate any kind of moral "ought" or " should" for it to hold application for society.

" Science collects data and comes to conclusions based on that data."

Correct - which requires an interpretational framework based on starting presuppositions. Do you deny this? This is something even secular universities will acknowledge.

"It makes predictions and forms models based on those data and conclusions"

Correct. If the interpretation of that data is faulty - forming faulty conclusions - so too will be the model and/or larger body of apriori knowledge.

"Science doesn't assume naturalism."

You're right - many of those practicing it do. Science says nothing - So you're arguing against a strawman here.

"It starts with the foundation that only the natural world can be studied using natural methods (methodological naturalism),"

There are three primary, basal assumptions - among secondary assumptions - for current science - this one you've provided is a small part of them

"but it doesn't claim that only the natural world exists (philosophical naturalism) "

You're right again. Atheists practicing it do - by implication of their positions. .

"And how do you know that your specific god is the only possible source for the correct interpretation of that data?"

This is the very point of the meme. Revelatory epistemology.

" I could replace "God" with "magic pixies" or "Allah" and make the same argument. "

You could - and you'd merely be parroting a common atheists fallacy known as a faulty comparison. You even used the most common language they like " magic pixies " I believe Matt Dillahunty made that one popular. You also commented on my other meme which exposed this line of faulty reasoning. Man creating many gods is not an argument for none of them existing or all of them being false.

" Also, social science doesn't deal with moral "ought" or "should" issues. That's usually left to philosophy. "

Science is based on philosophy and the two intersect in the so called " social sciences " I would agree science can't produce moral ought, but try telling that to secular scientists and the plethora of " scientific " papers submitted to journals making moral pronouncements.

Part 1. " I don't deny that a foundational framework is necessary to interpret data"

OK. Well this is the crux of the matter regarding this conversation. The presuppositions one holds are imperative to right interpretations and applications of data. This is especially critical in the applied sciences where science is based on previous scientific findings.

"The scientific method doesn't assume philosophical naturalism, so if an individual scientist does, the scientific method can't prove or disprove their assumption."

Science as it's currently viewed and practiced in secular society does in fact hold to philosophical naturalism. This is one of the primary, basal assumptions alluded to above.

Here. It's the first one on the list. https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

"Not necessarily. Being an atheist doesn't automatically mean that someone doesn't believe in anything supernatural."

When I speak of atheists I'm primarily speaking of those of the militant atheist variety or the demographic known as " The New Atheists " Such as Richard Dawkins and Matt Dillahunty - and while I would agree this may not necessarily mean a jettisoning of the supernatural - most of the time when dealing with militant atheists it means exactly that.

"That article wasn't about philosophical naturalism"

It wasn't an article - it was a citation for the 3 basal assumptions of the scientific method - which is what we were discussing.

"it was about methodological naturalism."

Right. Which is directly derived from philosophy of science. This is how science is developed.

"Nowhere did it say anything about the natural, material world being all that exists."

This is an argument from silence fallacy. It directly implied it where it says - & I quote "There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us" It made no exceptions to this assumption.

"If a god exists and revealed his word to the world, that shouldn't be a presupposition. There should be a way to confirm that claim as true."

God is the standard of all truth - what would you confirm it with? No ultimate authority exists outside of God & his word to measure God & his word. This would be akin to using a bathroom scale to measure the tools of the department of weights & measures

"Regarding faulty comparisons, imagine you're talking to someone who believes in a god that isn't the god you worship, but has pretty much the same attributes."

There are none. I'm familiar with the major religions, & all of the "deities" they worship depart from the God of the bible in some significant way.

"Most of the attributes of your god are not unique to your god."

They in fact are. & this is true of the most significant differences. There are literally debates all over YouTube distinguishing those differences.

"Just like many of the claims in the Bible. They are just claims, not arguments or evidence for the claim."

This is a tu quoque fallacy, but also irrelevant - even if true. Ultimate authority documents do not argue or evidence truth - they just state it.

"So how do we demonstrate that your god is the real one and not a counterfeit one?"

"we" do not demonstrated it - *Christians* know it through revelatory epistemology.

"But many Christians use prayer as evidence that their god exists and interacts with people and with our physical world."

Not everyone who identifies as "Christian" is in fact Christian - Just like every religion doesn't worship the one true God.

"My presupposition is that if a claim is not supported by evidence, I generally shouldn't accept that claim as true."

Right, & just like before - what you deduce from that evidence is wholly predicated on the world view you hold to - where God is absent.

"How is not being convinced that a claim is true a faulty position?"

Because you can't know if a claim is true if you reject the very standard & basis for all truth, reality, logic,reason,science, & morality. Your world view is reduced to absurdity.

"Atheists are justified in using science and reason because they are constantly shown to be reliable."

Which is inconsistent with their evolutionary world view, which believes things are always evolving & changing. Science depends on a uniformity in nature *your world view* can not account for. Christians *know* nature will be uniform because revelatory knowledge has promised us it would be. Atheists must assume it at the expense of it conflicting with their world view. .

"Regardless of where they come from, we know that they work."

No "we" don't & there is no way to verify this in *your world view*. If you mean that *you* know that cause & effect operational science produces a certain set of preferred outcomes. Yes it does, but that does nothing to justify science * within your world view* & all it encompasses. Not without hitting major logical inconsistencies. .

"You don't have to know who built your car or in what city to know that it works, and if you turn the key, it's likely to start up like it did the last 1,000 times you turned the key."

You're right & I already said this - so you're repeating back to me what I just said in the previous response. However, you can not justify the existence or intelligent operation of a Ford vehicle - with those markings all over it - apart from acknowledging Ford motor company. You're also likely to operate it in a faulty manner without doing so.

"If you have a method of studying, investigating and learning about the world around us that can be shown to be more accurate and reliable than science and reason,'

This is a strawman. No one is arguing against "science" & "reason" but rather the world views those hold who claim to practice them autonomously or apart from God - who alone, justifies the uniformity in nature necessary for it's reliable use without faulty assumptions.

"and which has as one of its presuppositions the existence of God, then you would completely change the world and how we view and understand it."

The world has been changed by men who presupposed God & practiced science.64% of Nobel prize winning scientists have been believers.

"I would agree"

You really have no choice - It's a philosophical fact.

Part 2. "What is that?"

Revelation knowledge by God's revealed word

"Comparing God to Allah or magic pixies isn't a faulty comparison,"

It in fact is. It's making weak comparisons which are only as strong as the degree to which the audience they're being presented to see the things as similar - rather than arguing deductively against them. From my perspective - it's intellectual laziness.

"because there's just as much evidence for one as the others"

Which is a claim - not an argument for a claim - but also irrelevant, even if true and assumes your epistemology.

"and they have similar traits."

Counterfeit money has very similar traits to real. This line of reasoning is faulty.

"If someone is sick and you pray to God and I pray to magic pixies and the person gets better, you can say it was God who answered the prayer and I can say it was magic pixies, and both of our claims are equally unfalsifiable."

We could, & both of us would be wrong in our conclusions. Prayer is not getting what we want - so the example is predicated on a strawman view of prayer & Christian theology.

"I've heard Matt use magic pixies as an analogy, but I've also used it on my own as well."

This is neither here nor there and irrelevant anyways.

"That's not what I'm saying. But I see just as much evidence for your god as I do for any other god, which is no evidence at all."

Which depending on your starting presuppositions - (Paraphrasing ) "God likely doesn't exist" - says more about you than the evidence or lack thereof that you claim.

"I'm not saying your god absolutely doesn't exist, just that I'm not convinced that he does exist."

Ok, Assuming this is true - this is also not what the conversation is about. If you start with the premise "I'm not convinced that he does exist" regardless of it's sincerity - the rest of your interpretational framework will flow from that faulty position.

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like your claim that science can only be correctly interpreted through a framework rooted in your specific god is a presupposition you hold to."

You're partly correct. I stated earlier that science & reason can sometimes be used well by atheists, but they can't provide a justification for it's use in their world view

"If that's the case, then nothing I say can change your mind."

All epistemological sources or knowledge claims start with presuppositions. This is true whether your an atheist or Christian. This is philosophy 101

I hate to tread on the toes of a fundamentalist Christian who can't even spell a priori correctly while brandishing it oh so impressively, but you're both wrong.

The myth that Einstein just doodled random numbers on a board till he came up with E=mc2 which lead to the nuclear bomb when he could have just as easily ended up with the collected works of Shakespeare instead is a myth. He decided to come up with E=mc2 and doth proceedeth backwards from it till he got his proof. Hell, his equations lead to no such bomb either, just the notion that if you smashed already atomically unstable material together hard enough in a compressed are, you make one helluva firecracker.
So as in any scientific quest it wasn't a bucket of raw data that randomly congealed over time into a LED lights, but rather Ben Franklin > Kite > > Edison > Light Bulb > Muh Computer > Memes

Now despite lacking the presupposition that the bastardized Romanicized paganized version of the Zoroastranized Hebrewized God is above all the other GodS because he's just so amazingly awesome because, um, something or other and therefore it was he, rather than they, that sat in the dark for an eternity till finally getting bored 8000 years ago as testified by some monk and so took to making a big ball of fire in the sky to see all the glory of Creation with because it looks so much better in Technicolor rather than with night vision goggles - no one invented artificial light by saying God did it because they did say that for hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of years with no light switch to reward them with for their faith to whatever Godly version of themselves they sacrificed babies to.

Shit, forgot where I was going with this, but basically, what's the point of arguing with someone who wishes to pretend he'd rather live the life of a baboon in the Serengeti? If he don't like that new fangled scientificalated mumbo jumbo crapola, the solution is simple: Unplug. That's all, unplug his device, unplug his thermostat, unplug his lamp, and wait for God's great ball of fire to illuminate his troglodyte day.

compressed area*

I see a spelling critique, a word salad full of logical fallacies,and Christian historical claims, commonly parroted by atheists, which are based in historical ignorance. This doesn't appear to form any ultimate conclusions. Can you summarize your point or points for me and be a bit more coherent ?

You see what you can't refute because what you see is a mockery of what you pretend to wish can be you.

But here, I'll make it simple for someone of your mental limits:
Don't like it? Don't buy it. Period.
You have my permission to separate yourself from this world. Done.

You're welcome.

"You see what you can't refute because what you see is a mockery of what you pretend to wish can be you."

This is yet another logical fallacy. Appeal to motive.

"But here, I'll make it simple for someone of your mental limits"

An Irrelevant posturing, ad hominem. An all time atheist favorite.

"Don't like it? Don't buy it. Period"

You'll have to expound upon this.

"You have my permission to separate yourself from this world. Done"

I already have. Just not in the way - I suspect - you mean.

"You're welcome"

Whether or not I'm thankful for what was said remains to be seen. We'll see in the next round.

Haha, I was just telling someone about this- those like you whose stand in for an argument consists of citing logical fallacies and nothing but. All form, no content.

You have no argument, so all you can supply is the latticework for one while expecting the other to plug in the relevent facts, opinions, subtance... which you then thus proceed to dismiss with the brush of, yup, Top 5 logical fallacies citations.

How's that for your "apriori," you delightful chunk of psuedo intellectual bauble bubbles babble?

substance*

"Haha, I was just telling someone about this- those like you whose stand in for an argument consists of citing logical fallacies and nothing but. All form, no content."

There is nothing to counter argue - just logically fallacious statements. Did you tell them that? Or was that conveniently omitted while your friend nodded in agreement to your preaching to the choir?

"You have no argument, "

Guilty as charged. I have none - nor do I need one. There was nothing offered here to counter argue. I asked for clarification and all you had were more logically fallacious statements and irrelevant posturing. .

"How's that for your "apriori," you delightful chunk of psuedo intellectual bauble bubbles babble?"

More irrelevant posturing, part psychological projection, and becoming quickly self evident that you're immature and wasting my time.

This guy with nothing to say is still yapping the same nothing to say?

Go back to sleep.